July 2003



Of course, most of those millions were poor people in Africa and Asia, so they don’t really matter do they? Lisa Makson’s article on DDT and Malaria is a must-read in Frontpage Magazine. Is genocide too strong a word?

Dr. Alexander King, head of the Malthusian Club of Rome, which is active in more than 40 countries on five continents, voiced a similar opinion in a 1990 book, The Discipline of Curiosity (Elsevier Science Publishers, p. 43). He had helped introduce DDT for use in World War Il, he wrote, and was impressed by “the enormous number of lives it saved. My own doubts came when DDT was introduced for civilian use. In Guyana, within two years, it had almost eliminated malaria, but at the same time the birth rate had doubled. So my chief quarrel with DDT in hindsight is that it greatly added to the population problem.”

(Source: http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/Killer.html)
According to Makson, similar sentiments have been expressed by leading environmentalists:

Another anti-DDT Malthusian is Sierra Club director Michael McCloskey, who said that the “Sierra Club wants a ban on pesticides, even in countries where DDT has kept malaria under control…[because by] using DDT, we reduce mortality rates in underdeveloped countries without the consideration of how to support the increase in populations.”

Stalin killed millions by withholding food. The Greenies are doing it by withholding DDT. By the way, if your environmental friends go on about how DDT weakens the shells of raptor eggs, ask them for the peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that prove their claims. Quoting Rachel Carson doesn’t make the grade.

Advertisements


According to a report in the Boston Globe,

The lawsuit filed in US District Court in Detroit challenges a provision of the counterterrorism law that increased the FBI’s access to records and personal belongings, with the permission of a secret federal court in Washington.

It’s a funny thing but most acts of Islamic terrorism have been committed by Arabs and Muslims. In order to prevent further catastrophes on the scale of 9/11, the FBI needs the ability to keep tabs on those most likely to commit acts of Islamic terrorism. The rest of America is getting sick and tired of the moronic PC presumption that they are equally likely to commit acts of Islamic terrorism every time they travel. We’d actually appreciate a bit of help from the Arab and Muslim communities in America. Their constant opposition to the War on Terror is wearing a bit thin.

These comments don’t apply to the Iraqi community in America except for Saddam’s spies and stooges.


MSNBC reports that these hearings will take place Thursday. The Democrats who’ve been trying to make the “missing” WMD into a weapon to bash Bush had better pay attention.

”They are going to be very optimistic about some of the stuff that they have come across, but certainly no smoking gun,” one U.S. official said.
They will detail ”promising leads” and brief lawmakers that there was ”certainly evidence of a program” to develop biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, the official told Reuters on condition of anonymity.

I think you’ll see the administration shift the attention from WMD to WMD programs. Any sensible person will understand that having the capability to manufacture WMD is just as dangerous as possessing the actual weapons. While nuclear weapons take time and raw materials to develop, chemical and biological weapons can be produced very rapidly once the manufacturing facilities are in place. As I’ve noted before, Saddam would have been very concerned about Iran’s nuclear program and Israel’s nuclear deterrent. I cannot imagine he would have felt safe with two regional enemies armed with nuclear weapons. He had to have been desperate to get hold of nuclear weapons.


The classification of the section of the September 11th Report that deals with Saudi involvement is putting some heat on the Bush administration. Despite the claims that Saudi Arabia is on our side in the War on Terror, many people remain deeply suspicious.

LGF has a link to an analysis of a captured document that list 20 extremely wealthy Saudi sponsors of Al Qaeda. The document was found in a raid on the offices of the Benevolence International Foundation in Sarajevo on March 2002. It tells us Al Qaeda is dispersed across the bloody borders of Islam and that Islamic charities are often fronts for terrorist activities. If the Saudis were really on our side, all those rich Saudis would be in US custody and their assets would be frozen. Their $85 billion would make a nice 9/11 compensation fund.

The Golden chain includes the Bin Laden brothers. Very soon after 9/11, members of the Bin Ladin family living in the US were flown back to Saudi Arabia on a chartered plane with FBI assistence. Byron York recounts the story in NRO. How come they got a free pass out of reach of US investigators?

Then we have the evidence of Saudi complicity in terrorism that is documented in Dore Gold’s book “Hatred’s Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global Terrorism”. Gold was the Israeli ambassador to the UN.

Saudi Arabia is the primary financial backer of Hamas, one of the major obstacles to peace in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia exports the extremist Wahhabi brand of Islam across the world by funding mosques and Islamic charities.

In the War on Terror, Saudi Arabia would seem to rank ahead of Iraq as a target, yet it has escaped serious attention. The biggest problem in dealing with Saudi Arablia is its ability to drop an economic bomb on the West using the oil weapon. Seen in this light, the invasion of Iraq makes strategic sense. Once the Iraqi oil industry is pumping at full capacity, Saudi Arabia’s oil weapon loses much of its power. But the Iraqi anti oil weapon is not yet ready, so the Saudis will continue to get the kid-glove weapon for a while. I can’t think of any other reason why the Bush administration would go easy on Saudi Arabia.


This Washington Post Editorial starts by assuming Global Warming is a fact:

HERE’S A RIDDLE for our times: When is a scientific fact not a scientific fact? Answer: When the fact in question concerns climate change. Over the past decade, an enormous number of scientists, ranging from those who study wildlife migration to those who measure polar ice caps, have found evidence that Earth’s climate is changing. Few now doubt either that Earth’s temperature is rising or that greenhouse gases, produced when human beings burn fossil fuel, are at least partly responsible.

At this stage of the game, it is not possible to distinguish recent temperature changes from natural variation. A lot of responsible scientists have published peer-reviewed papers that cast doubt on that “fact”. We now know that the 20th century was not unusually warm. The Medieval Warm period was warmer yet nobody is claiming that that bout of global warming was caused by human beings burning fossil fuel. According to Shaviv and Veizer, the biggest driver of climate change over the past 500 million years has been the galactic cosmic ray flux. As the earth moves through the spiral arms of the Milky Way the cosmic ray flux varies, influencing cloud formation. For more on cloud cover and its effect on climate see SUNSHINE, CLOUDS AND COSMIC RAYS by E. Palle Bago and C.J. Butler. They conclude

Until the cloud behaviour on temporal and geographical scales is understood, via long and reliable datasets, global circulation models and predictions will be seriously handicapped.

Yet the President is being pressured to make policy based on inductive computer models that are seriously handicapped and economic scenarios that are unrealistic. As Taylor points out, the IPCC scenarios expect

poorer nations as a whole to catch wealthier nations in economic output this century [which] would require that average incomes on the entire continent of Asia increase over the next 100 years by a factor of 70 to 1 …

That isn’t going to happen.


According to Fox News

At least one senator, Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards of North Carolina, has defended the Patriot Act rules.

“We simply cannot prevail in the battle against terrorism if the right hand of our government has no idea what the left hand is doing,” Ashcroft quoted Edwards as saying.


The New York Times wants the Government to give Zacarias Moussaoui the right to question Ramzi bin al-Shibh in his defense. It seems to think the Bill of Rights applies to an admitted member of a terrorist group that is at war with the United States.

During WW2 eight Nazi saboteurs were apprehended and tried by a military tribunal. Six of them were executed and two given long prison terms. The case was considered by the Supreme Court. In its ruling it wrote

The spy . . . or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.

Al Qaeda has already killed more people and caused more property damage on US soil than the Nazis managed. The government should follow the precedent set during WW2 and treat all members of Al Qaeda the same way as those hapless Nazis.

Next Page »